Views and Perspectives
The 2007-2008 Bargaining Process
There were Some Benefits to the Process
There were Some Concerns with the Process
The Process has Created Challenges
Future Bargaining Processes
The Precedent of Provincial Bargaining
Provincial Bargaining Versus Local Bargaining
Achieving Balance in Bargaining
The Alberta Government Should be at the Table
The Capacity of School Boards
The Capacity of the ASBA
The Capacity of SBEBA

6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
11
12

Historical Perspective
A Period of Change and Unrest
The Alberta Commission on Learning
Creation of SBEBA

This report was prepared by Patricia Mackenzie, Principal, Mackenzie Management Consulting
For more information contact the ASBA office at 1.780.482.7311.
Published September 25, 2008

Exe c ut ive Summar y
On November 15, 2007, it was announced that a provincial Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) had been established between the Alberta Teachers’
Association (ATA) and the Alberta Government. The MOA addressed the
unfunded teachers’ pension liability, and also included provisions for salaries,
allowances and substitute pay, instructional time and term of collective
agreements. All school boards were asked to conclude local collective agreements
by January 31, 2008, regarding all other items not part of the MOA, and the
MOA terms were to be incorporated into all local agreements.
The direct bargaining between the Government and the ATA was a deviation
from the historical process used by local school boards and the ATA. To inform
future bargaining efforts, the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) initiated
a project to identify key views, opinions, concerns and benefits experienced in
conducting the 2007-2008 collective bargaining process. Interviews were
conducted with groupings of trustees, superintendents and administrators from
39 school boards. These included some member school boards of the Coalition
for Choice and boards of the School Board Employers’ Bargaining Authority
(SBEBA).
Most school boards believe there were benefits to the 2007-2008 bargaining
process, namely, that the unfunded pension liability was settled; that five years
of labour peace was established; and that future salary increases were indexed to
the Alberta Average Weekly Earning Index.
However, many school boards expressed concerns with the process. School
boards were not consulted in the negotiation of the MOA, and feel the
Government marginalized school boards and showed a lack of respect for duly
elected trustees. School boards also felt pressured by the Government to
conclude local agreements quickly, and many believe this resulted in a poor deal
for Alberta taxpayers.
School boards also believe the 2007-2008 bargaining process has created
challenges. The MOA undermined the bargaining position of school boards,
forcing them to keep provisions with which they hoped to bargain. Financially,
the MOA did not provide for “grid creep” and other important financial issues.
Unclear language in the MOA has led to a higher number of grievances.
Overall, the bargaining process employed has created a “perfect storm” wherein
all collective agreements across Alberta will expire in 2012.
School boards have a range of views about what the 2007-2008 process means
for future rounds of bargaining.
A majority of school boards believe that the precedent of provincial bargaining
has been established, whereby the Province will be directly involved in
negotiations with the ATA. Others are unsure, while some boards are adamant
that local school boards retain responsibility for collective bargaining. Of the 39
2

boards interviewed, 66% said they support the Province being involved in
negotiations. Most school boards express a preference that the Province and the
ASBA work together in a way that allows local boards to have input into the
bargaining process.
Many school boards believe that as the funder of the education system, the
Alberta Government should be at the bargaining table in some capacity. This
would give the Government better control over salary increases; create a better
balance of power in bargaining; and result in better accountability to taxpayers.
School boards believe the ASBA has an important role to play in future
bargaining and should work with the Alberta Government to clarify the roles of
all parties before bargaining in 2012.
A long-term bargaining solution is required that recognizes the complexity of
collective bargaining while meeting the needs of major players. The status quo is
simply not an option.
It is clear that, as the provider of education funding, the Alberta Government
must play a role in bargaining. It is also clear that bargaining needs to provide
for the input of local school boards in order to accommodate local diversity,
preferences and labour relations histories. The scope of local input on major
financial issues needs to considered, for in reality, the difference in salaries
generated by local bargaining is not significant.
The ASBA should pursue three progressively aggressive options, each with the
same goal of providing certainty in the bargaining process before 2012. Option
One and Option Two respect the principle of CHOICE, with boards having the
ability to bargain either as a member of an employers’ association or to bargain
directly with their local ATA.
• Option One: Pursue voluntary agreement on a single collective
agreement process between an employers’ association and the ATA.
• Option Two: Pursue enabling legislation to require collective bargaining
between an employers’ association and the ATA.
• Option Three: Pursue a collective bargaining process involving the
Alberta Government, the ASBA and the ATA.
Clear, effective communication among all parties, and with Albertans, will be
essential in order to establish a successful negotiating process for 2012.

3

Ba c kgrou nd
During the later part of 2007, a process was initiated to negotiate an agreement
regarding the unfunded teachers’ pension liability, between the Government of
Alberta (Department of Education) and the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA).
On November 15, 2007, the Premier announced that a provincial
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been reached in principle with the
ATA. The MOA included a range of provisions that addressed the unfunded
pension liability, salaries, allowances and substitute pay, instructional time and
term of collective agreements.
In the main, the MOA provided that:
1. The Government of Alberta would assume responsibility for the
teachers’ portion of the pre-1992 unfunded pension liability, valued at
approximately $2.1 billion.
2. There would be five year collective agreements with teachers, ending no
earlier than August 31, 2012, which would include:
• Compensation (salaries, allowances and substitute pay) increases
over a five year period. For the 2007-2008 school year, the
increase is 3%. The remaining four years are tied to the Alberta
Average Weekly Earning Index (AAWEI); however, there is no
reduction in compensation if AAWEI is negative. The increase
for 2008-2009 is 4.53%.
• A signing bonus of $1500 per teacher.
• Extension of hours of instruction provisions contained in certain
collective agreements.
The MOA was negotiated with very limited involvement or input from local
employers (i.e. school boards), or the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA)
representing the employers. Despite this fact, all school boards were asked to
conclude collective agreements at the local level regarding all other items not
part of the MOA, and the relevant MOA terms were to be incorporated into all
local agreements.
School boards were also informed that they were to complete their local
negotiations by January 31, 2008 – a date established by the Government of
Alberta as a condition of ratification of the MOA.
The direct bargaining between the Government of Alberta and the ATA was a
deviation from the historical process used by local school boards and the ATA.
In light of this, the ASBA initiated a project to identify key views, opinions,
concerns and benefits experienced in conducting the 2007-2008 collective
bargaining process. Further, the ASBA wished to identify any lessons learned
from these negotiations and identify options for the future. The President of
ASBA contacted all Board Chairs and Superintendents, encouraging them to
become involved in the project.

4

Proj e c t Pro cess
Patricia Mackenzie, Chair of the 2002-03 Commission on Learning in Alberta,
was asked to lead the project.
Interviews were conducted either personally or via video-conferencing with 39
boards, including 4 large boards,1 19 medium-sized boards,2 and 16 small
boards.3 Ten boards specifically requested interviews. A list of all school board
participants is included in Appendix One.
Eight interviews were conducted with boards that are part of the group known
as the Coalition for Choice – a group of 11 school boards who believe locallyelected school boards must retain the right to choose the method by which they
negotiate with their teacher employees. Interviews were also conducted with all
of the school boards who formed an employers’ organization known as the
School Board Employers’ Bargaining Authority (SBEBA). Lists of the school
boards that are members of the Coalition for Choice and SBEBA are included in
Appendix Two.
Groupings of trustees, superintendents and administrators participated in most
of the interviews. In some cases, those interviewed stated that the views they
expressed were their own, rather than official positions of their boards.
Boards were asked to comment on the benefits of the MOA and their own local
negotiations, and to identify areas of concern. They were asked if they felt a
precedent had been set regarding the Province’s participation in negotiations,
and whether they wanted the Province to be involved in future bargaining.

1.Those school boards with more than 25,000 students.
2. Those school boards with between 5,000 and 25,000 students.
3. Those school boards with less than 5,000 students.

5

Vie ws An d Perspective s
The 2007-2008 Bargaining Process
Interviewees provided their perspectives on the 2007-2008 bargaining process,
the impact of the process on their local school boards, and issues raised by the
process that need to be considered before the next round of bargaining in 2012.

There were some benefits to the process
Most school boards articulated similar views about the benefits of the process:
• Unfunded liability settled – Generally, most boards were very happy that
the unfunded liability of the teachers’ pension fund has been assumed by
the Province. Some said the settlement of this long standing issue will
help facilitate better labour relations and will create better morale among
teachers.
• Labour peace established – Most boards were also happy that the MOA
established a five year period of labour peace. School boards said this
will enable them to focus on other issues besides negotiations, including
longer term planning.
• Salaries indexed province-wide – Boards were also pleased that the
Government of Alberta will fund salary increases using the Alberta
Average Weekly Earning Index for all teachers across Alberta. Some
smaller boards noted that this will reduce the competitive pressures on
salaries they sometimes faced.

There were some concerns with the process
School boards expressed a number of concerns with the process that was used:
• Time pressures – School boards expressed concerns about the very short
time line that had been stipulated for the conclusion of local collective
agreements. The time available between the announcement of the MOA
(November 15, 2007) and the stipulated deadline (January 31, 2008)
was limited, especially since this period included the Christmas break.
Some boards said they were pressured by the Alberta Government to
complete agreements by the deadline – pressure that went as far as
threatening boards with dissolution if they did not sign agreements in
time.
• Quality of the deal – Some boards expressed the view that the time
pressures resulted in their acceptance of provisions they would not have
otherwise accepted. It was felt that the Alberta Government placed
heavy onus on school boards to accept a deal, and placed little onus on
the ATA to take issues off the table in order to make a deal work. As a
result, the ATA gave up very little in exchange for a very costly ($2.1
billion) assumption of the unfunded pension liability by taxpayers.
Alberta taxpayers, it was said, did not get a good deal.

6

• School boards were marginalized – Most school boards said they knew the
unfunded liability issue was being discussed, but were very surprised
when the MOA was announced. Some said they learned about the
MOA only an hour before its announcement. Many expressed their
frustration at the Government’s lack of consultation and engagement
with school boards.
• Unclear language – Neither school boards nor the ASBA were included in
negotiations on the MOA, and consequently did not understand the
meaning of language used in certain MOA provisions. Some boards said
that, although the MOA was to be integrated into their local agreements,
they did not receive precise boiler-plate language from the Government
or the ASBA, but instead from the ATA.
• Local bargaining was undermined – School boards said their local
bargaining was also made more challenging due to the MOA. The MOA
negotiation engaged the ATA at a province-wide level (i.e. Barnett
House). Some school boards said they had good relations with their
ATA locals until Barnett House became involved. Other boards said they
were powerless at the bargaining table due to the MOA; once salary
issues were settled, they had nothing left with which to bargain.
• Lack of respect – Overall, school boards felt that the Alberta Government
fostered a very comfortable relationship with the ATA, while exhibiting a
significant lack of respect for local school boards and their duly elected
trustees.

The process has created challenges
School boards articulated a number of challenges that have resulted from the
process:
• Unclear provisions – Certain provisions in the MOA are inconsistent with
their local bargaining histories. Language they had employed in local
agreements for years has been challenged or replaced by unclear language
from the MOA. This has resulted in a higher number of grievances, with
more expected in the future.
• Insufficient funding – Funding increases are not guaranteed for
administrative or support staff over the length of the MOA. It was also
noted the MOA did not provide for other financial issues such as “grid
creep” – the cost of salary increments due to movement up the salary
grid – which is an important issue in their districts.
• Undermined local negotiations – Many school boards noted the MOA
undercut their local negotiations by forcing them to keep certain
provisions they had originally hoped to bargain with. The most notable
was the extension of instruction time provisions.
• Perfect storm – School boards widely expressed concern that all local
collective agreements across Alberta will expire at the same time in 2012.
The next provincial general election is also likely to be held that same
year. Many described this as a “perfect storm” that will face the Province
and local school boards.

7

Future Bargaining Processes
School boards provided a range of views regarding how the recent round of
bargaining could potentially influence bargaining processes in the future.

The precedent of provincial bargaining
School boards have diverging views about whether the recent bargaining process
has established a precedent of provincial bargaining:
• The majority of boards believe that a precedent of provincial bargaining
has been established, whereby the Province will be directly involved in
negotiations with the ATA in the future, particularly in 2012.
• Other school boards are not certain whether a precedent has been
established, but express hope that it has. A great number of school
boards say that provincial bargaining of major financial issues, or all
financial issues, would lead to a better process and would make better
sense.
• A few are concerned that a precedent has been established, and are
adamant that local school boards retain responsibility for collective
bargaining. The Province’s involvement in the last bargaining process
was seen by some as a special circumstance due to the unfunded pension
liability issue; with this off the table, they said, local bargaining will
resume.

Provincial bargaining versus local bargaining
Though many school boards see Provincial involvement in bargaining as a
positive development, there are other boards who believe local bargaining is
preferable. Still others believe that future Provincial involvement is unlikely.
• Of the 39 boards interviewed, 66% said they support the Province being
involved in negotiations; 15% were opposed and 9% would not
comment. Most expressed a preference that both the Province and their
Association work together in a way that allows local school boards to
have input into the bargaining process.
• Some boards said that provincial bargaining would also be more efficient
and effective. Local boards spend an enormous amount of time and
resources preparing for and engaging in negotiations. Provincial
bargaining would free up boards to focus on other important issues, such
as student achievement, completion rates, and fiduciary responsibilities.
• Medium-sized and smaller boards said that local bargaining processes
strain or destroy working relationships and place a strain on
communities. This is especially true in smaller and rural communities,
where employers and employees interact at church, the grocery store or
other places outside of work. Provincial bargaining would preserve these
local relationships and foster positive local labour relations.

8

• Some school boards viewed local bargaining as the central reason for the
existence of school boards; provincial bargaining, they said, would make
school boards redundant since boards would have little to bargain once
major financial issues were resolved. One school board said this would
be like leaving them “half-pregnant”. Some expressed the concern that
elimination of local bargaining might result in the future amalgamation
or elimination of local school boards.
• Many who expressed a preference for local bargaining cited local labour
relations as a reason. Member boards of the Coalition for Choice, for
instance, said they mainly focus on respect for teachers and the
preservation of relationships.
• Other boards said that local collective agreements contain clauses that
address local irritants or have local historical significance, and that
keeping these clauses is important. Local bargaining, they said, is needed
to address local differences and to respect local labour relations. At a
minimum, school boards need to be able to provide local input into the
bargaining process.
• A number of boards said that local bargaining will remain because the
Province will not wish to negotiate with the ATA in 2012. Some
expressed the belief that the Province regards local school boards as a
convenient buffer between the Alberta Government and teachers, and for
this reason will want to preserve local bargaining.

Achieving balance in bargaining
Many school boards discussed the need for a better balance in bargaining:
• Some boards called local bargaining a “farce”, saying that it does not
really exist once Barnett House becomes involved in negotiations. In
reality, local school boards are not negotiating with their ATA locals, but
with a well-funded and well-organized provincial machine. Even if a
local school board and ATA local can agree on a deal, the deal could be
scuttled if Barnett House does not approve.
• Barnett House whipsaws local school boards, securing deals with weaker
or sympathetic boards, and using these to pressure other boards and
influence mediation.
• At the same time, the ASBA does not have the ability to force its local
members to comply with strategies, directives, policies or common
objectives. This makes it difficult for school boards to present a unified
front, and much easier for the ATA to divide and conquer all school
boards.
• Provincial bargaining, it was observed, would help achieve a more equal
balance of bargaining power between the parties.

9

The Alberta Government should be at the table
Many boards noted the Alberta Government should have a role in bargaining
since it is the funding source of the education system:
• In the past, if funding from the Alberta Government has been
insufficient to cover the increases provided for in the local collective
agreement, boards have been forced to cut staff or services or to use
accumulated surpluses.
• School boards have been shouldered with the responsibility of bargaining
but are not given corresponding power to meet these responsibilities,
especially in regard to funding. This compromises trustees’
accountability to taxpayers. Some believe this awkward relationship is
leading to growing disinterest in serving on school boards.
• Some suggested that Provincial involvement in bargaining would better
align responsibilities with levels of authority, which would clarify the role
of school boards and lead to a resumption of respect and interest in
trusteeship. Many interviewees noted there are fewer candidates running
for trusteeships, and that more trustee positions are being filled by
acclamation. In the election counts for school trustees in 2007, 62%
were acclaimed: 68 new trustees were acclaimed, 198 returning trustees
were acclaimed, while 79 new trustees and 81 returning trustees faced
elections.
• Under provincial bargaining, the Alberta Government would have better
control over salary increases and could negotiate on the basis of knowing
its funding capacity. This would also result in better accountability to
taxpayers.

The capacity of school boards
Many views were expressed concerning the capacity of school boards to engage
in future bargaining processes:
• Local school boards experience turnovers and are often comprised of
many new trustees shortly before a new round of bargaining. For
example, school trustee elections were last held in October 2007; the
MOA was announced in November 2007; and school boards were
expected to conclude local agreements by January 2008. Such short
timing places school boards at a disadvantage, since new trustees are still
acclimatizing to their roles and are unfamiliar with bargaining issues and
histories. It was observed that the next school board elections will take
place in October 2010, leaving only a year before the next round of
bargaining begins.
• The ATA can heavily lobby returning trustees and influence the election
of new trustees. In one school district, the ATA was said to have
influenced the creation of a slate of ATA-friendly school board
candidates, many of whom were successfully elected. It was also said that
the ATA will “infiltrate” school boards by encouraging former ATA
members to become trustees.
10

• The result is that school boards are not always well positioned to offer a
counterpoint to the ATA’s demands during bargaining, undermining
their ability to secure the best deal for Alberta taxpayers.
• Some said that local bargaining would be strengthened if local school
boards had local taxation power. This would give them access to
additional resources and increase their accountability to electorates. Of
those boards interviewed, 43% supported school boards having local
taxation powers; 19% were uncertain; and 38% did not want local
taxation powers. However, it was roundly observed that if local taxation
were adopted, there would still be a need to ensure equity in funding for
all school boards.

The capacity of the ASBA
School boards had a number of views about the capacity of the ASBA to engage
in future bargaining processes:
• Some boards said the ASBA is at a disadvantage because it is unable to
bind its members to common bargaining positions. Local boards retain
the ability to go their own ways, enabling the ATA to whipsaw different
boards. This results in an imbalance of bargaining power between a
strong and effective ATA on one side and a loose coalition of school
boards on the other side.
• Other boards expressed the concern that the ASBA is “asleep at the
switch”. Some said that its legal services respond too slowly. Others
observed that the ASBA does not maintain sufficiently strong
relationships with the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Education
and other Alberta Government ministries. The ASBA needs to
demonstrate strong leadership in communicating with the Alberta
Government.
• Some said that the ASBA has insufficient resources. Yet others raised
concerns that ASBA fees were too high.
• Overall there was general agreement that ASBA serves a valuable role in
providing support to school boards – through services such as data
collection, development of position papers, and assistance in negotiating
collective agreements. There was also agreement that ASBA has an
important role to play in future bargaining, and that the ASBA should
work with the Alberta Government to clarify the roles of all parties
before bargaining in 2012 begins.

11

The capacity of SBEBA
Various views were also expressed about SBEBA, the employers’ authority that
was created by 12 school boards. (For background regarding the origin of
SBEBA, see “Historical Perspectives”, below.)
• SBEBA members felt positive about their efforts but recognized they face
challenges. Some said SBEBA would have been more effective in the last
round of bargaining but for the MOA and the shortened timeline; given
the time constraints and pressures, they felt SBEBA worked well.
• Other school boards noted that the ATA does not wish to negotiate with
an employers’ authority like SBEBA. The ATA, they said, is targeting
SBEBA members and placing pressure on boards that are considering
SBEBA membership. Some boards noted the ATA still retains the ability
to whipsaw SBEBA members, since the ATA is not required to negotiate
a single collective agreement with SBEBA.
• A few boards raised concerns about the future of SBEBA, particularly
with respect to communications approaches. Some said that SBEBA
needs to be more transparent in its approach, and more open in sharing
information with its members. One person said, “The cone of silence
could destroy SBEBA from within.” Some boards that are not SBEBA
members said they are taking a “wait and see” approach to possible
membership in the future.

12

His to r ic a l Perspective
Over the past twenty years, a number of events have had significant implications
for school board governance.
School boards have existed in cities and towns across Alberta since the early
1900s. Historically in rural areas, although school committees existed as part of
local governments, county councils had approval over school budgets and set
mill rates. County and municipal district councils were, essentially, de facto
school boards. Over time, school divisions and counties formed in rural areas,
while towns and cities had school districts. In the 1950s, many of the small
school boards were amalgamated.
In the 1970s and 1980s, local associations or authorities were formed to
negotiate agreements with their teachers and the ATA. The Bow Valley School
Authority Association and the North Central West Bargaining Authority are two
examples of seven authorities that were formed; each authority negotiated a
single collective agreement for all teachers within its jurisdiction.

A Period of Change and Unrest
In 1994-95, as part of the fiscal restraints on the part of the Alberta
Government, a series of actions affected education in the province. Wages for
teachers were rolled back. Many school boards were amalgamated, reducing the
total number of local school boards from 144 to 60. The right of local school
boards to tax property for education was removed; all local property taxes for
education thenceforth flowed directly to the Alberta Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General
Revenue Fund, and the Government assumed full responsibility for education
funding.
In 2001-02, labour unrest among Albertaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s teachers, school boards and the
Alberta Government brought a number of governance issues into sharp focus.
In 2002, there were teacher strikes in 22 school districts. In response, the
Alberta Government introduced the Education Settlement Services Act (ESSA),
which came into force on March 14, 2002. Teachers returned to work and a
binding Arbitration Tribunal was established. This Tribunal awarded teachers a
14.1% increase in salary over two years. Under the ESSA, a number of items
were also removed from collective agreements, including clauses regarding pupilteacher ratios, class sizes, and minutes of instruction.
On April 19, 2002, the Government of Alberta, the ATA and the ASBA signed a
Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to the ESSA, which outlined the
parameters for a Commission to examine teaching and learning conditions in
Alberta. Subsequently, the Government of Alberta established the Alberta
Commission on Learning.

13

The Alberta Commission on Learning
The Alberta Commission on Learning (the “Commission”) listened to the views
of hundreds of Albertans, reviewed research and trends, sought advice from
experts, explored options and developed their own recommendations. The
Commission’s report, Every Child Learns, Every Child Succeeds, was published in
October 2003. The Alberta Government supported 88 of the 95
recommendations, but reserved accepting certain recommendations that had
substantive implications for the education system and education stakeholders.
The Commission’s report included a section entitled “Good Governance”, in
which the Commission made 6 recommendations with the goal of creating
“stable labour relations allowing school boards, superintendents, principals and
teachers to focus on students and achieving excellence”. Among these was
Recommendation #81: “Create a new approach to collective bargaining with four
key components”. The first component, as articulated by the Commission, was to
establish a legislated employer bargaining association to correct the imbalance in
bargaining power between a strong and effective ATA and a loose collection of
school boards.
In April 2005, the ASBA brought a resolution to the floor of its annual general
meeting, proposing a provincial bargaining model. Although the vote carried
with a 59% weighted majority, at least 11 of the 62 school boards did not
support the motion. Subsequently, a group of 11 school jurisdictions, named
the Coalition for Choice, presented a paper to the Alberta Government’s
Standing Policy Committee on Education and Employment. This paper stated
that, “Locally elected school boards in Alberta must retain their right to choose
the method by which they negotiate with their teacher employees.”
The Government of Alberta has not, to date, implemented enabling legislation
that would require negotiation of one collective agreement at one table between
an employers’ organization and the unions that hold applicable bargaining
certificates.

Creation of SBEBA
In 2006, a number of school districts explored the possibility of forming an
employers’ bargaining authority. In early 2007, 12 school boards4 came together
to form an employers’ authority known as the School Boards Employer
Bargaining Authority (SBEBA).
SBEBA is an “employers’ organization” within the meaning of section 1(n) of the
Labour Relations Code5, with member school boards having passed resolutions6

4. A list of school board members of SBEBA is contained in Appendix Two.
5. Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c. L-1; hereinafter referred to as the “Code”.
6. Resolutions were passed between February 26, 2007 and March 7, 2007.

14

authorizing SBEBA to undertake collective bargaining with the ATA7 on their
behalf. The School Act authorizes a school board to become a member of an
employers’ organization and to delegate its power to bargain with employees to
the employers’ organization.8
On May 4, 2007 and May 7, 2007, the ATA wrote to the Alberta Labour
Relations Board initiating bad faith bargaining complaints against eight
employers to which it had initially sent notices commencing collective
bargaining. On May 23, 2007, SBEBA wrote to the Alberta Labour Relations
Board initiating bad faith bargaining and unfair labour practice complaints
against the ATA, and initiated a reference application regarding collective
bargaining between SBEBA and the ATA.
The reference application pertained to section 12(2) of the Code, requesting
guidance on the issue of bargaining between a single bargaining agent such as
the ATA and an employers’ organization such as SBEBA.
The Board heard witnesses and counsel for both parties and directed:9
On the reference question of the Board Directing Multiunit Bargaining:
Accordingly, in the Board’s view, it is without legislative authority to order or
direct that the bargaining between ATA and SBEBA take place on other
than a single unit basis. Our conclusion that we do not possess the authority
to direct multiunit bargaining should not deter the parties from mutually
agreeing to engage in such a process…
…
For reasons not entirely clear to us, the ATA and SBEBA got off to a rocky
start and quickly found themselves at an impasse due in the main to their
difference over whether multiunit bargaining could be obliged or was only
consensual. With that issue now out of the way we would hope they will
quickly get on with collective bargaining on a single unit basis, although it
would still make more sense to us if they mutually agree to do so on a
multiunit basis.
[Emphasis added.]
The Board dismissed the ATA complaints that the employers had bargained in
bad faith. The Board found that the ATA breached its duty to bargain in good
faith with SBEBA, contrary to section 60 of the Code, and had interfered with
the formation of the SBEBA, contrary to section 151(c) of the Code.

7. The ATA is a “Trade Union” within the meaning of section 1(x) of the Labour Relations Code, supra note 5. The ATA
holds the bargaining certificate and is the bargaining agent, by certification or voluntary recognition, for teachers
employed by the SBEBA employers.
8. School Act, RSA 2000, c. S-3. Relevant provisions of the School Act are contained in Appendix Three.
9. School Boards Employer Bargaining Authority and The Alberta Teachers’ Association, [2007] Alta.L.R.B.R. 240.

15

Dis c us si o n and Options
A long-term solution is required that recognizes the complexity of collective
bargaining while meeting the needs of major players. There is misunderstanding
regarding the roles and powers of ATA locals, Barnett House, local school boards
and the ASBA. These roles must be clarified. The status quo is simply not an
option, especially since the next round of bargaining stands to be significant.
Many school boards used the term “perfect storm” in describing the next round
of bargaining, noting that all collective agreements end in August 2012 – likely
the same year as the next provincial election.
Consequently, there is a compelling need for certainty in the collective
bargaining process as 2012 approaches.
Although Options 1 and 2 contemplate a continuance of collective bargaining
between the ATA and local school boards, or between local schools and an
employers’ authority, it is clear that the Government of Alberta must have a
meaningful role in some capacity.
The Alberta Government has played a role in past bargaining sessions. It is also
the provider of education funding, and accordingly, school boards feel the
Government must be involved in negotiations so that they are informed by its
financial perspective and commitment level. Support for the Alberta
Government’s direct involvement in negotiations has also been articulated by the
Alberta Financial Management Commission of 2002, which recommended
that:10
Government should play a more direct role in establishing a framework for
public sector salary negotiations through a mechanism for sharing
information with various employer groups including health authorities and
school boards. This would include providing guidance on the province’s
ability to meet new fixed costs on a sustainable basis and on competitive
salaries and benefit levels in other provinces and jurisdictions.
It is also clear that bargaining needs to provide for the input of local school
boards in order to accommodate local diversity, preference and labour relations
histories. However, the scope of local input on major financial issues (i.e.
salaries and benefits) needs to considered. In reality, the difference in salaries
generated by local bargaining is not significant.
Appendix Four contains tables that rank teachers’ salaries and teachers’ salaries
and benefits across school divisions in Alberta for the 2007-2008 and 20082009 school years. Excluding the five highest and five lowest ranked school
divisions, the variation in salaries for 2008-2009 is only $996, a deviation from
the mean of 0.01%.11 A large amount of time and financial resources are

invested by local school boards in undertaking local bargaining for salaries and
benefits. This marginal variance raises questions about the value of these
investments. Put another way, if the differences in salaries and benefits are
minimal, then provincial bargaining of these issues may make more sense.
No matter what bargaining processes are employed, all players must work within
these processes in a spirit of good faith, aiming to forge equitable agreements
that are fair to teachers and taxpayers alike, and which strengthen education in
Alberta. Teachers, the ATA, individual school boards, the ASBA and the Alberta
Government must all do their part to create better relationships between
teachers, school boards and the Province.
Historical facts, the bargaining structures of other provinces,12 the views of ASBA
members, and the recommendations of the Alberta Commission on Learning
have been taken into consideration in formulating the following options for
preparing for future rounds of bargaining.
The options are not prescriptive; they are strategic. They are presented as a set
of progressively aggressive strategies, with the intention that they be pursued in
order. Each option is attached with a reasonable time frame; if the option can
not be accomplished within the time frame, then the next option should be
pursued.
The goal of each option is the same: to provide certainty in the bargaining
process before 2012.

Option 1
Pursue voluntary agreement on a single collective agreement process
between an employers’ association and the ATA.
This option would involve requesting Alberta Employment and Immigration to
facilitate discussions between the ATA, the ASBA and the Government of
Alberta. The goal would be to secure voluntary agreement on a collective
bargaining process for 2012 – one that would allow an employers’ association to
bargain with the ATA for one collective agreement, at one table, for employees
within the employers’ association’s boundaries. Discussions amongst the parties
under this option should be concluded before December 31, 2009.
Rationale:
• This option preserves the principle of CHOICE. School boards wish to
retain the right to choose how they negotiate. Some choose to negotiate
locally, while others choose to join an employers’ association to negotiate
agreements. A perceived lack of choice was one of the reasons the ASBA
employers’ association resolution failed to gain significant traction.

12. A review of bargaining structures used in other Canadian provinces is contained in Appendix Four.

17

• Under this option, school boards that choose to form an authority to
negotiate a collective agreement have certainty they will be bargaining for
one agreement at one table. This option also gives the ATA the ability to
bargain directly with those school boards who do not join an employers’
association.
• While preserving choice, this option is consistent with the intent of the
Commission’s recommendation of establishing a legislated employer
bargaining association. This option would partially address the current
imbalance of bargaining power.
• A number of boards, particularly smaller boards, are very concerned
about the time and cost of negotiating agreements at the local level.
They also find that local negotiations are very divisive in their
communities. This option enables smaller boards to overcome these
hurdles.
• There is a precedent for the ATA bargaining with school districts at one
table. Through the 1970s and 1980s, and until the mid-1990s, the ATA
negotiated collective agreements with 7 regional authorities. In the ATA’s
response to the Commission’s Recommendation #81, the ATA
acknowledged that, under the School Act, school boards have the power
to establish regional or province-wide bargaining. They also
acknowledged that voluntary school authority associations conducted
negotiations with the ATA during this period.
• The approach of this option has found success in past negotiations
between the nine Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) of Alberta and the
United Nurses of Alberta, where the RHAs utilized the services of the
Health Boards of Alberta Services (HBA Services) to voluntarily bargain
one contract at one table.
Should this option be successful, it is highly recommended that all parties work
on a longer-term strategy to promote positive working relationships amongst the
parties. This will require commitment, new thinking and a shift in
organizational cultures.

Option 2
Pursue enabling legislation to require collective bargaining between an
employers’ association and the ATA.
This option would involve the ASBA working with the Alberta Government to
create enabling legislation that would require negotiation of one collective
agreement, at one table, between the employers’ association and the unions
holding the applicable bargaining certificate. This option would not require
school boards to join an employers’ association for their bargaining, nor would it
require these school boards to be bound by the collective agreement negotiated
by the employers’ association. However, it would require the ATA to bargain
one collective agreement, at one table, for employees within the employers’
association. This option should be concluded by the end of 2010.
18

Rationale:
• This option is similar to that which ASBA was working towards with its
annual general meeting resolution of 2005, which was approved by a
59% weighted majority. The resolution did not gain traction because
some large school boards did not support the resolution and lobbied the
Alberta Government against enacting enabling legislation.
• This option could use rules similar to those in the Labour Relations Code
pertaining to Alberta’s construction industry. Under those rules, a group
of employers can form an employers’ organization, and apply to the
Labour Relations Board for a registration certificate to obtain the
exclusive right to bargain on behalf of all unionized employers for a
particular construction trade and sector. Registration of an employers’
organization occurs if the majority of eligible employers express support,
similar to the requirements for union certification to represent a group of
employees.
• However, unlike the rules set up for the construction industry, the
enabling legislation envisioned under this option would not be binding
on local school boards who do not join the employers’ organization,
thereby preserving CHOICE.
• This option would also overcome the jurisdictional hurdle articulated by
the Labour Relations Board in the reference case between the ATA and
SBEBA. Although the Board expressed support for a process in which
the parties negotiate one agreement on a multiunit basis, the Board
concluded that it lacked authority to direct this outcome. Hence, in the
absence of voluntary acceptance of such a process (i.e. Option 1), the
logical next step would be to seek enactment of enabling legislation.

Option 3
Pursue a collective bargaining process involving the Alberta Government,
the ASBA and the ATA.
This option involves the establishment of a new collective bargaining process
between the Government of Alberta, the ASBA and the ATA. This option
should be negotiated in 2011. This option involves extensive work to determine
what issues should be bargained at a provincial level; an effective and appropriate
mechanism for pursuing this bargaining; and a means of ensuring the ASBA is
present at the bargaining table to provide input as a collective voice on behalf of
school boards.
Regardless of whether this option successfully establishes a formal process during
2011, the involvement of the Alberta Government may be unavoidable in 2012.
Many school boards predicted that the MOA will result in a “perfect storm” in
2012, with all collective agreements expiring during an election year. If
negotiations of new collective agreements reach an impasse and multiple teacher
strikes occur, the Alberta Government’s involvement will ultimately be
inevitable. Efforts in 2011 to pursue a formal collective bargaining process
should be mindful of this potential outcome.
19

Rationale:
• An examination of bargaining structures employed in other Canadian
provinces reveals that 7 of 10 provinces include some degree of provincial
government involvement in negotiations. The government is either
directly involved, as in Saskatchewan and a number of Atlantic
provinces; or the government is involved, as in British Columbia, where
the BC government has 4 voting members on the British Columbia
Public School Employers’ Association. Even in two of the three provinces
with legislated local bargaining, the provincial government is still
involved. In Ontario (where local bargaining is in effect), the provincial
government has set up Provincial Discussion Tables where the teachers’
unions, the school boards’ associations and the government negotiate the
terms of the collective agreement. In Alberta, the provincial government
negotiated a number of the provisions of the MOA, which were included
in the local collective agreements
• 66% of the 39 school boards interviewed during this project stated their
preference for the Province’s involvement in bargaining. The commonly
held view is that the funder must be at the table, and the Alberta
Government is the funder. Most boards felt that all substantive financial
matters, including salaries and benefits, should be bargained by the
Alberta Government.
• This option would prevent duplication in bargaining efforts across the
province, and would lead to a measure of consistency in salaries and
benefits.
• This option would also relieve school boards of the strain and costliness
of local bargaining. Many boards expressed the view that provincial
bargaining would improve local labour relations with teachers and
preserve productive relationships in communities. Boards could also refocus their time and resources on improving education in their districts,
through efforts on student achievement, completion rates, long-term
planning, and fiduciary responsibilities.
• This option would also clarify and better align the responsibilities of the
Alberta Government and the local school boards with their respective
degrees of authority. This would improve the accountability of local
school boards to electorates.
• The report of the Task Force on the Teachers’ Unfunded Pension
Liability, published in October 2007, highlighted a number of issues that
it said the province may want to consider. These included, “Considering
provincial bargaining for salaries with local bargaining for specifically
local issues.” The Task Force noted that this issue was beyond the terms
of its mandate, but that it was an important issue for the Alberta
Government and teachers to consider in the future.

20

C o n c lus io n
Albertans are currently experiencing five years of labour peace in the education
sector, with current collective agreements expiring in 2012. Though this may
seem like a significant period, in reality the next round of bargaining will arrive
quickly. The bargaining process is complex and preparing for negotiations will
take considerable time. Work must be started now in order to create the
certainty needed for 2012.
The options outlined in this report lay out a strategic path for pursuing the
degree of certainty that school boards say they require. They do not represent a
quick fix, nor are they designed to satisfy a particular ideological agenda.
Rather, they are designed to focus attention on issues that need to be addressed
and to promote leadership on the part of school boards, the ASBA, the Alberta
Government and the ATA, in working together to clarify their important roles in
the bargaining process.
Having said this, in the writer’s view, Option 3 is likely to provide the best
chance for long-term certainty in the bargaining process. If success can not be
achieved through Option 1 nor Option 2 within the suggested timeframes, then
in 2011, Option 3 should be rigorously pursued.
Despite the various positions of the parties involved, there needs to be a shared
commitment and unrelenting efforts from all sides to agree on a successful
negotiating process for 2012. This will be challenging. Like other public
sectors, bargaining in education has an added political dimension. Public
opinion is sensitive to events, circumstances, and comments that surround
teacher negotiations. Without clear and appropriate communication, the
environment can be conducive to public misinformation or misunderstanding,
intentional or otherwise. This is especially the case when significant change
from the status quo is being contemplated and discussed.
Clear, effective, continuous, open communication – not spin or propaganda –
will be needed in order to facilitate progress on crafting a certain bargaining
process. This communication needs to occur between the parties and with
Albertans – communication of planned approaches and goals, of successes and
challenges, and of setbacks and accomplishments.
The SBEBA must communicate more effectively with its members, and with
prospective members, to ensure constant transparency and the promotion of
critical feedback for improvement.
Local school boards need to communicate on a regular basis with their elected
Members of the Legislative Assembly to ensure they are aware of the challenges
and opportunities affecting their constituencies. These are the individuals who
examine, debate, and vote on policy and legislation affecting education in
Alberta, and they face many competing interests and concerns from various
sectors. ASBA members must ensure that their concerns are heard. ASBA could
21

help support members in advancing these concerns, through the provision of
tools such as position papers and statistics.
The ASBA must also communicate frequently and effectively with the Minister
of Education and the Department of Education. A consultation committee has
been established between the Alberta Government and the ATA. No less should
be done for the ASBA. Regular meetings should be held between the Minister
of Education and the President of ASBA to discuss issues important to ensuring
the best possible education system in Alberta.
Furthermore, effective communication with the Alberta Government is essential
in bargaining, regardless of which Option is pursued or what bargaining process
is used. As the source of funding for education, the Alberta Government needs
to have open lines of communication with ASBA, so that financial commitments
and expectations are understood. Bargaining can not take place in a vacuum.
Finally, it is in the best interests of Albertaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s children to have all stakeholders
come together on a regular basis to discuss and debate the issues facing
education in the province. Efforts on all sides to employ openness, exercise
careful thought, and take deliberate action will ensure continuous improvement
in labour relations and positive outcomes for students. By working together and
investing in the future of our children, Alberta will lead the country, if not the
world, in its quality of education.

Labour relations
119(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Labour Relations Code
applies to a board and the employees of the board that are not
subject to the Education Services Settlement Act.
(2) A board may
(a) be a member of an employers’ organization, and
(b) delegate its power to bargain with any of its employees to the
employers’ organization.
(3) When a delegation is made under subsection (2), the employers’
organization may bargain collectively and make an agreement on
the board’s behalf in accordance with the Labour Relations Code.

Benefits have been adjusted to reflect the elimination of health care premiums by
the Alberta Government effective January 1, 2009.

31

2008-2009 Salary Information (Category 4 Maximum Salary + Benefits)

32

SCHOOL BOARD

C4 MAX

BENEFITS

TOTAL

RANK

Westwind SD #74

$79,692

$6,142

$85,834

1

Clearview SD #71

$79,675

$6,361

$86,036

2

Calgary Board of Education

$80,408

$5,702

$86,110

3

Grtr South. Sep. Franco. ER #4

$80,365

$6,036

$86,401

4

Horizon SD #67

$80,469

$6,052

$86,521

5

St. Paul ERD #1

$80,690

$5,874

$86,564

6

Prairie Rose SD #8

$80,436

$6,165

$86,601

7

Christ The Redeemer CSRD #3

$80,455

$6,195

$86,650

8

Grande Yellowhead RD #35

$80,429

$6,259

$86,688

9

Grtr South. Public Franco.

$80,607

$6,097

$86,704

10

Foothills S. Div. #38

$80,575

$6,137

$86,712

11

Chinook's Edge RD #5

$80,718

$6,003

$86,721

12

St. Albert PSSD #6

$80,715

$6,024

$86,739

13

High Prairie SD #48

$80,817

$5,928

$86,745

14

Grtr N. Central Franc. ER #2

$80,604

$6,147

$86,751

15

Palliser RD #26

$80,591

$6,195

$86,786

16

Edmonton SD #7

$80,693

$6,130

$86,823

17

Wolf Creek RD #32

$81,158

$5,670

$86,828

18

Wild Rose SD #66

$81,210

$5,641

$86,851

19

Golden Hills RD #15

$80,816

$6,041

$86,857

20

Canadian Rockies RD #12

$80,575

$6,283

$86,858

21

Northern Gateway RD #10

$81,002

$5,867

$86,869

22

Livingstone Range SD #68

$80,802

$6,084

$86,886

23

Lethbridge SD #51

$80,576

$6,331

$86,907

24

Red Deer RCSSD #17

$79,623

$7,289

$86,912

25

Aspen View RD #19

$80,508

$6,405

$86,913

26

Greater St. Albert CRD #29

$80,284

$6,636

$86,920

27

Grasslands RD #6

$80,835

$6,102

$86,937

28

East Central Franc. ER #3

$80,750

$6,205

$86,955

29

Holy Spirit CSRD #4

$80,579

$6,380

$86,959

30

Rocky View S. Div. #41

$80,407

$6,553

$86,960

31

Elk Island PSRD #14

$80,824

$6,148

$86,972

32

Black Gold RD #18

$80,999

$5,984

$86,983

33

East Central Alberta CSSD #16

$80,905

$6,091

$86,996

34

Fort McMurray RCSSD #32

$81,012

$6,001

$87,013

35

Calgary RCSSD #1

$80,668

$6,373

$87,041

36

Evergreen RD #2

$80,509

$6,534

$87,043

37

Parkland SD #70

$80,968

$6,083

$87,051

38

Edmonton CSSD #7

$81,045

$6,010

$87,055

39

Medicine Hat CSRD #20

$80,700

$6,393

$87,093

40

Elk Island CSRD #41

$80,598

$6,500

$87,098

41

Prairie Land RD #25

$80,939

$6,209

$87,148

42

North-West Franc. ER #1

$80,680

$6,485

$87,165

43

Battle River RD #31

$81,050

$6,140

$87,190

44

St. Thomas Aquinas RCSRD #22 $80,966

$6,227

$87,193

45

Lakeland RCSSD #150

$80,714

$6,486

$87,200

46

Pembina Hills RD #7

$81,189

$6,031

$87,220

47

Buffalo Trail RD #28

$81,173

$6,092

$87,265

48

Wetaskiwin RD #11

$80,889

$6,390

$87,279

49

Northern Lights SD #69

$81,153

$6,205

$87,358

50

Sturgeon S. Div. #24

$81,302

$6,090

$87,392

51

Peace Wapiti RD #33

$81,030

$6,394

$87,424

52

Living Waters CRD #42

$80,802

$6,688

$87,490

53

Peace River SD #10

$81,890

$5,875

$87,765

54

Holy Family CRD #37

$81,358

$6,473

$87,831

55

Red Deer SD #104

$81,031

$6,860

$87,891

56

Grande Prairie RCSSD #28

$81,405

$6,503

$87,908

57

Grande Prairie SD #2357

$81,403

$6,578

$87,981

58

Medicine Hat SD #76

$80,786

$7,267

$88,053

59

Fort Vermilion S. Div. #52

$82,406

$6,102

$88,508

60

Fort McMurray Public #2833

$82,557

$6,831

$89,388

61

Northland S. Div. #61

$83,638

$6,832

$90,470

62

Benefits have been adjusted to reflect the elimination of health care premiums by
the Alberta Government effective January 1, 2009.

33

Appendix Five: Provincial Bargaining in Canada
There are a variety of bargaining structures across Canada. Seven provinces
bargain at the provincial level, either directly with the government or with a
provincial association of school boards. Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario
currently have local bargaining for teacher contracts. As such, there is some
variation between school districts in these provinces. In 2004 and 2008, a
hybrid form of negotiations took place in Ontario, when the Minister of
Education invited the school boards’ associations and the teachers’ unions to
participate with the government at Provincial Discussion Tables.
There is a wide range of salaries for teachers across Canada. Appendix Six
contains the 2007-2008 average provincial salary grid comparison. Based on a
4-year Bachelor of Education degree, Alberta ranks first in salary comparisons
amongst all provinces at both the minimum and maximum salaries. With a 4year Bachelor of Education degree and a 2-year Master’s degree, Alberta ranks
first in minimum and second in maximum salaries.
The following is a summary of provincial bargaining structures in Canada and
the most recent information available regarding terms of collective agreements
and negotiated general salary increases. Generally, most provinces have moved
to multi-year contracts, ranging from 3 to 5 years in length.

British Columbia
Collective bargaining in British Columbia is done provincially. The bargaining
agent for the school boards is the British Columbia Public School Employers’
Association (BCPSEA). There is a 13-member board, with 9 representatives
from school boards and 4 from government and 2 superintendents, who are
non-voting. The bargaining agent for teachers is the British Columbia Teachers’
Federation.
There is one collective agreement that is comprised of provincial language as well
as some local provisions specific to each of the 60 public school districts. All
issues of substance are negotiated provincially.
The current provincial collective agreement, effective for 5 years (July 1, 2006 –
June 30, 2011) has wage increases of: 2.5% in 2006-07; 2.5% in 2007-08; 2.5%
in 2008-09; 2.5% in 2009-10; and 2% in 2010-11.

Alberta
Bargaining in Alberta is done at the local level. As a result, there are 62
collective agreements addressing largely the same subject matter. However, in
2007, a Provincial Memorandum of Agreement was negotiated directly between
the Government of Alberta (Department of Education) and the Alberta
Teachers’ Association (ATA). The Government assumed responsibility for the
teachers’ portion of the unfunded pension liability (approximately $2.1 billion)
and negotiated increases for salaries, allowances and substitute pay for the next
five years. Additional collective agreement provisions were negotiated locally by
34

a deadline of January 31, 2008, a date established under the provincial
Memorandum of Agreement.
All 62 collective agreements covered by the Memorandum of Agreement are in
effect from September 2007 to August 2012 and provide for salary increases of
3% for the 2007-2008 school year, with salary increases for the remaining four
years tied to the Alberta Average Weekly Earnings Index (4.53% for 20082009).

Saskatchewan
There is a two-tiered system of bargaining in Saskatchewan. The Education Act
defines what can be bargained at each level. A variety of matters, including salary
and benefits, are covered under the provincial agreement. There is one
provincial agreement and as a result of recent amalgamations, 51 local teacher
collective agreements will be reduced to approximately 30.
The provincial agreement is effective from September 1, 2007 to August 31,
2010, with compensation increases of: 3.4% in 2006-2007; 5% in 2007-2008;
4% in 2008-2009; and 3.5% in 2009-2010.

Manitoba
Bargaining in Manitoba is conducted on a local basis between individual school
boards and the Manitoba Teachers’ Society. There are 38 teacher collective
agreements across the province.
The collective agreements operate from July 1 to June 30 and currently range
from 1-4 years, with most being 3 years in duration. Salary increases are: 3% in
2006-2007; 3% in 2007-08; 3% in 2008-2009; and 3% in 2009-2010 along
with some flat dollar adjustments to salary grids during a variety of years,
ranging from $200 to $500.

Ontario
Bargaining in Ontario is done locally by school boards. The provincial teachers’
unions are the legislated bargaining agents for the teachers and the individual
school boards are the bargaining agents for the employers. There are four
publicly-funded school systems – English Public, English Catholic, French
Public and French Catholic. The English Public System has two teacher unions
with the legislated provincial authority to bargain for teachers, namely the
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) and the Ontario Secondary
School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF). The English Catholic System has one
teacher union, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA),
which bargains for both elementary and secondary teachers. The two Frenchlanguage systems have one shared union for teacher bargaining, the L’Association
des enseignantes et des enseignants Franco-Ontariens (AEFO).
There are 150 collective agreements covering regular teachers and 103 collective
agreements covering occasional (substitute) teachers in Ontario. All collective

35

agreements covering regular teachers and virtually all collective agreements
covering occasional (substitute) teachers expire on August 31, 2008. By statue,
all teacher and occasional teacher collective agreements must be either two or
four years in duration.
In 2004-2005, a hybrid form of bargaining took place. The Minister of
Education invited the School Boards’ Associations and the Teachers’ Unions to
participate with the government to reach a “framework agreement” provincially.
This process was eventually successful, and all teacher contracts were concluded
by June 30, 2005 within the framework agreement parameters. Teacher contracts
and occasional teacher contracts were effective from September 1, 2004 to
August 31, 2008. Salary increases are 2.5% in 2006-07 and 3% in 2007-08
with an additional 0.7% on August 31, 2008. Under the provincial framework
agreement, the government agreed to fund support staff salary increases identical
to teacher salary increases.
In 2008, the Minister of Education proposed a similar approach for negotiating
teacher and occasional teacher collective agreements. Provincial Discussion
Tables (PDT) were established; one for the Catholic School Boards’ Association
and the OECTA; one for the combined French language School Boards’
Association and the AEFO; and two separate tables for the Public School Boards’
Association one with the ETFO and one with the OSSTF.
As of August 31, 2008, two of these tables have concluded PDT Agreements
and the parties are conducting local bargaining based on these agreements.
Under these PDT Agreements are salary increases of: 3% in 2008-09; 3% in
2009-10; 3% in 2010-11; and 3% in 2011-12. The government has set a
November 30, 2008 date for parties to have ratified local agreements in order to
be eligible for the enhanced funding provided in the PDT Agreement. English
Public School Boards have yet to conclude PDT Agreements with the ETFO
and the OSSTF.

Quebec
Quebec has followed a three-level bargaining system since the 1970s. Salaries,
pensions, regional disparities insurance and parental rights for public sector
employees, which include teachers, are bargained at the provincial Central Table.
Working conditions, including duties/responsibilities, class size/composition and
organization of work for teachers are bargained at a Provincial Sectorial Table,
while arrangements/ adaptations to certain provincial sectorial issues are
bargained at Local Tables to meet local needs.
The Management Negotiating Committee for English-language School Boards
(CPNCA) is responsible for one collective agreement covering approximately
8,000 teachers and the Management Negotiating Committee for Frenchlanguage School Boards (CPNCF) is responsible for two collective agreements
covering about 90,000 teachers. These collective agreements are in effect from
December 15, 2005 to March 31, 2010, and provide salary increases of: 2% in
2006-07; 2% in 2007-08; 2% in 2008-09; and 2% in 2009-2010.
36

New Brunswick
Collective bargaining is done provincially between the Government of New
Brunswick and the New Brunswick Teachers’ Federation (NBTF). There is one
collective agreement with an expiry date of February 2008. That collective
agreement, at the time of this report, is currently under renegotiation.
Salary increases under the expired collective agreement were 4% in 2006-2007
and 2% in 2007-2008.

Nova Scotia
Bargaining in Nova Scotia is done provincially, with the collective agreement
signed by the Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union and the Minister of Education. There
is one provincial agreement and 8 local agreements. The Teachers’ Collective
Bargaining Act specifies some items that are negotiated locally between the
union and local boards. The results of these local negotiations are included in
the provincial agreement as appendices. The bulk of these local agreements
revolve around staffing and leave provisions.
The provincial collective agreement expired in July 2008 and is currently being
renegotiated. The expired collective agreement provided for salary increases of
2.9% in 2006-07 and 2.9% in 2007-08.

Prince Edward Island
Bargaining is done provincially by the Minister of Education and PEI Teachers’
Federation. Bargaining is done through a statutory entity known as the
Education Negotiating Agency (ENA) and the PEI Teachers’ Federation. The
ENA is composed of two representatives of the Education department, one
representative from Treasury Board and typically three management
representatives of school boards. By legislation, any financial matter negotiated
by the ENA requires approval of Treasury Board as the funder of the education
system.
The current collective agreement is from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010, with
salary increases of: 2.5% in 2007-08; 3% in 2008-09; and 3% in 2009-10.

Newfoundland and Labrador
Bargaining is done provincially by the government (represented by the Treasury
Board) and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association. There are
two collective agreements: one provincial contract covering most teachers in the
province (5498) and one contract covering approximately 105 teachers in
Western Labrador. Both collective agreements expired on August 31, 2008.
Salary increases received under the provincial contract were: 3% in 2006-07 and
3% in 2007-08. Collective bargaining is currently underway to renew these
collective agreements.